click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
, there is no limitation. president obama says this. some members of my party say the battle has no geographic limitations, and the laws of war apply. it's important to know that the law of war that they're talking about means no due process. boyleston street sure looked -- "i quote from the" wall street journal "editorial." boyleston street sure looked like a battlefield on monday and so did watertown on thursday night. the artificial distinction arises from undue focus on geography. the vital distinction for public safety is between common criminals who deserve due process protections and enemy combatants at war with the united states wherever they are. as for due process, the greatest danger to liberty would be to allow more such attacks that would inspire an even greater public backlash against muslims or free speech or worse. the antiterror types on the left and g.o.p. senators who agree that the u.s. isn't part of the battlefield are making the united states more vulnerable. americans erupted in understandable relief and gratitude on friday with the rapid capture of the terrorist brothers, but we sh
hearing on the obama administration's controversial drone program. lawmakers wanting to know more about who our government is targeting and killing. a retired air force colonel set to testify joins us live ahead. jon: the boston tere owe attacks may complicate efforts to a bi-partisan immigration reform proposal. the bombing suspect received asylum in the u.s. more than ten years ago. republican law mangers like senator rand paul are urging caution on changing immigration laws right now. senator paul writing to senate majority leader harry reid, quote we should not proceed tpwh-l we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the united states from a chechen republic of russia who committed acts offer to reus eupl. were there any save guards? could this ha been prevented, dores the immigration laws before prevent this? jay carney was asked about this at the press wraoefg. >> do you think rand paul has a point at all that what happened in boston reflects something wrong with the current system of immigration
a couple weeks ago, anything you say against obama is good policy. that is his opinion and that the way he's going. should be tried in federal court, because they have a couple options -- the death .enalty if he does not want to cooperate, they could go ahead with the death penalty. then you'll see how fast he turns. as far as being a military combatant, no, that's out of the question. he is a u.s. citizen. hanks for the call from south carolina. i want to show you a few of the front pages. this is the boston globe this morning. several other stories about the attacks. boston paper with the bombing on the front page, this is "the guardian out of london. if a picture on the front page shows runners observing a moment of silence before the start of the london marathon yesterday, less than a week after the attacks at the boston marathon. is up next from massachusetts on the republican line. caller: he is an enemy combatant. an 8-year-old boy with a bomb. he used his telephone to say he wanted to kill more americans, so he proved that. he was an enemy. host: the you think that he should end up
has only just begun, and the decision by the obama administration, not to designate him as an enemy combatant is upsetting several republicans. >> i have been informed that the obama administration has indicated this suspect in boston will not be treated as enemy combatant. i strongly disagree with the obama administration's decision to rule out enemy combatant status for this suspect at this time. >> let's bring in our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, joining us from new york. can or should a u.s. citizen be formally given this enemy combatant status? what does the law say? >> every terrorist suspect arrested in the united states, since the first world trade center bombing in 1993 has been treated in the criminal justice system, not as an enemy combatant. standard operating procedure. frankly, the whole status of enemy combatant remains ambiguous in the legal system. the prisoners in guantanamo bay remain in legal limbo. by treating them as criminal suspects, the obama administration is avoiding all kinds of risks and simply acting as the bush administration has in the past and
is to kill them overseas before they get here. i think president obama has been doing a pretty good job of that in the past few years. immigration is a very complex issue. that is my basic take on that. the: colonel larsen, one of earlier caller talked about the family of the suspect. the ap said it talk to the father of the two young men. the father of the suspects in the boston marathon bombing said his son on a list is a smart and accomplished young man. smart on the loose is a and accomplished young man. that is from the associated press, who reached the father of the two suspects in russia. call is from it in maryland. would like to i thank the colonel for his service. i wanted to ask the -- asking a question concerning terrorism and its definition. i believe political terrorism, of course, is widely known and accepted. but there is also secular terrorism, as shown in bosnia, alsoxample, and probably institutionalized care as we experienced in nazi germany and bosnia recently. i would like your comments on that. guest: i have been doing some work with survivors of the siege and the
thoughts on that? >> i don't think that that's going to happen. the obama administration has been clear, they're distancing themselves from that concept. you've got an american citizen. we don't have dzhokhar going abroad in training. his brother apparently did. but dzhokhar didn't. and dzhokhar is going to be tried as an individual on his own right. so i think the chances of this ending up as an enemy combatant are very small. >> but you've heard that because of high security concerns they would like to question him for a period of time, albeit briefly, before mirandizing him and reading him his rights. how long can they do that? how far can they go with those questions? >> well, that's a very good question. because the longer we go, the less likely there is that there's a public security issue here. one thing that the defense will certainly raise is the remarks of the police chief of watertown in which he said these are the only two guys, we're done. now the argument from the government will be well, he wasn't informed. but, you know, that's going to be played out pretty significantly
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6